If you think about it, we are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech. Because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater. So what’s the next step after that? After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech and there’s a real and present danger.

Is he right? I think so.

Christianity teaches eternal destruction (read that, hell) for those without the Savior it heralds.

Christianity teaches that all men and women are sinners by nature and by choice.

Christianity teaches that there’s only one way to God — Jesus Christ.

Christianity teaches that all other professed ways to God are false.

Christianity teaches that its written text, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, were inspired without error in all they affirm.

Christianity teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved solely for one man, one woman marriage.

These and many other things abrade today’s cultural sensitivities and social demands. As such, is not Sen. Rubio’s prediction pretty obviously correct?

by
Travis Weber

May 29, 2015

Recent news from Alabama affirms that states can still have a voice and push back against efforts by the federal government to override them on marriage — in this case by resisting aggressive, unlawful assumptions of authority by federal courts.

U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade recently issued another order barring certain probate judges from denying same sex marriage licenses, but stayed her order pending the Supreme Court’s imminent decision on same sex marriage.

Could Judge Granade’s stay be standard operating procedure given the upcoming decision? Possibly.

Could it also be that she stayed the decision because she is afraid of being again rebuked by the Alabama Supreme Court and receiving proper, lawful pushback? Also, possibly.

In this recent order, Judge Granade also still pretends that the Supremacy Clause requires lower federal court decisions be recognized as authoritative federal law, but this notion is nowhere near as settled as she makes it out to be. It could be that she knows this and doesn’t want to be exposed should the state of Alabama again lawfully defy her reasoning, so she has protected herself by staying her ruling.

In response to her ruling earlier this year, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore issued a two-part memorandum — the first part explaining who has authority to give orders to probate judges under Alabama law, and the second part explaining that probate judges are free independently to determine whether state laws and constitutional provisions violate the federal Constitution. For while the Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” it does not wholly place the power to interpret the federal Constitution with lower federal courts — a creation of Congress under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution.

While some have dismissed Chief Justice Moore’s second argument as outmoded and long settled, their claims do not bear up under closer scrutiny. While his opponents claim to highlight his “defiance” of the federal government in the present context by drawing comparisons to civil-rights era race issues, their comparison is inapt, for the situations toward which they point involve Supreme Court rulings and clear federal law.

In this regard, critics of Chief Justice Moore’s position also have to consider the following: Imagine that after the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott ruling, a federal district court issues an order barring a northern state from enforcing a law providing that a slave voluntarily taken into that state becomes free. Are state officials required to comply with this federal court order? If you answer “no” to this question, you would be going even further than Chief Justice Moore’s argument that state officials can properly ignore the precedential effect of lower federal court decisions they regard as lacking a constitutional basis.

Opponents of this position — a group which appears to include Judge Granade — have failed to grapple with the fact that state court judges are not bound by and are not required to give precedential effect to lower federal court rulings on the federal Constitution. Rather, state court judges remain free to determine the meaning of the federal Constitution themselves. In so pointing out, Chief Justice Moore has not argued that state judges can ignore the Supremacy Clause or defy a court order with proper jurisdiction over them — rather, he is merely pointing out that lower federal court rulings do not clearly bind state court judges as to the meaning of the federal Constitution.

Legal experts like Professors Amanda Frost and Howard Wasserman have defended Chief Justice Moore’s views on the legal process at play here. Even such would-be critics as Emily Bazelon, writing in the New York Times, admit his position (that one federal district judge does not have the final say over Alabama) is well-grounded.

When both the states and lower federal courts have the authority to interpret the federal Constitution, conflicting interpretations may arise. But one thing is clear: those who designed our Constitution clearly intended that total power of its interpretation would not lie with either the states or federal government.

These developments surely were not missed by Judge Granade. While they may not be the reason she stayed her latest order, they may have also been in the back of her mind as she made that decision. Certainly, lawful resistance by states makes it more difficult to lower federal judges and the federal government to trump opponents of their agenda on marriage. This may have been just enough of a headache — a perfectly lawful headache — for Judge Granade that she preferred to avoid the issue at this point.

This should also serve as a lesson to those states which already have shown undue deference to lower federal court rulings or believe there is no way they can resist the unlawful assumptions of power by lower federal courts and the federal government regarding marriage.

by
Rob Schwarzwalder

May 22, 2015

American society has been characterized as post-Christian, post-modern, post-conservative, post-racial, and post-gender. We are said to be a culture of narcissism (Christopher Lasch), a culture of death (Ramesh Ponnuru), a culture of war (Anthony J. Marsella), a culture of fear (Barry Glassner), and even a culture of wimps (John Strausbaugh).

There is some truth in just about all of these (although “post-genderism” is a term only the academy could love, given its intrinsic detachment from biological reality). But one things is sure: The culture of secularism – “the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country” – is growing.

While Evangelical Christianity is growing or at least holding its own, other Christian traditions and religion generally are diminishing. As the latest Pew Research poll on religious faith in our country demonstrates, “the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing.”

This presents Christians with a tremendous opportunity to minister the grace and truth of Christ in all spheres of endeavor and in both personal and professional relationships. And also to share the good news of the salvation Jesus offers to a broken and breaking world.

Paul the Apostle says believers should be “making the best use of the time, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:16), echoing Moses’ prayer that God would “teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12). All for His glory.

Given the crises of our secular era, there can be no more bracing or encouraging counsel than that.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder Senior Vice-President Family Research Council

P.S. Why did the explosive riots in Baltimore happen? Read Dr. Pat Fagan’s study of the causes of inner city turbulence not only for a close analysis but practical counsel on how we can transform the urban family.

by
Josh M. Shepherd

May 19, 2015

How can an evangelical pastor address current issues that affect his congregation? Reverend Bill Shuler, lead pastor of Capital Life Church in Arlington, Virginia, led by example in a recent sermon – addressing the cultural shift on the definition of marriage.

His sermon on May 10, entitled “Scattered Seeds,” centered on how God can redeem His people in seasons of struggle. In an aside about how the next generation faces a barrage of influences hostile to faith, Rev. Shuler spoke on tolerance, God’s heart of love… and why believers cannot ignore how changing views on marriage policy can affect their religious freedom.

“Why does it matter what the Supreme Court has to say in a matter of days in regards to marriage?” he begins, then proceeds to answer the question – starting at the personal level.

“The Bible speaks way beyond tolerance,” he says. “The Bible commands us to love people, no matter their decisions. I’ve counseled people for what is, this year, now 30 years of full-time ministry. I’m commanded to love unconditionally, no matter who comes into my office.”

“Jesus is truth and love,” Rev. Shuler preaches. “We are commanded to love. But I want you to know, we are commanded to walk by standards that are found in the scriptures and we must stand upon those.”

“So the Supreme Court will make a decision,” notes Rev. Shuler, turning to national policy and its potential effect on believers nationwide. “In the days ahead, it is very possible that the government may become all the more intrusive when it comes to churches.”

Following a brief historical account of the often-misunderstood separation of church and state, Rev. Shuler gives a few real-life examples of intrusions beginning to happen. “Now the concern is, the government can demand of the church that you hire people who may not abide by the standards of the scriptures.”

“Or, [the government can demand] that you must marry a couple even if the couple does not line up with the definition of marriage in the scriptures.”

“What will the response be if we don’t do that?” Rev. Shuler considers. “We love people, but we cannot make that compromise. This is where we don’t know for certain yet what will happen.”

He presents one scenario: “Tax-exempt status could be taken away. Are you ready to support the church and the Gospel even if we’re not tax-exempt, because we stood on our convictions?” Another possible result, he says, could be “churches lose their buildings.”

“I’m not here to stir up something where we’re getting scared,” he says. “But we need to take this seriously. I believe that in this generation, if you don’t take it seriously, your children and grandchildren will look at you and say: Why didn’t you do something when it all was turning?”

“We need to know where we stand,” he concludes the brief discussion. “We love everybody. We should treat everybody with respect and love. There should not be a sense of treating people with some sort of unique disdain solely to those people because of their decisions.”

“We still stand for holiness and righteousness,” he says, pointing to his Bible. “And we believe this to be the authoritative Word of God, and this is where we stand.”

In regards to the court case, Rev. Shuler leaves his congregation with a point of action. “We will see what happens on this, but we need to pray.”

Josh M. Shepherd serves in communications at the Justice House of Prayer DC, an evangelical missions organization serving Washington, DC and the nation through ongoing prayer and strategic activism. He and his wife Terri are also Capital Life Church members.

by
Peter Sprigg

May 8, 2015

After last week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, those who seek a ruling that the Constitution of the United States requires a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples should be wary of over-confidence.

As usual, the eyes and ears of Court observers were focused on Justice Anthony Kennedy. He is often the “swing vote” between the Court’s liberal bloc (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) and the more consistent conservatives (Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito). Last week’s arguments gave every indication that Kennedy will cast the deciding vote again.

Some advocates of redefining marriage see victory in the current case — an appeal of a decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld one-man, one-woman marriage laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee — as a foregone conclusion. They base their confidence on opinions Justice Kennedy has written in earlier cases which upheld the pro-homosexual cause — most notably, the 2013 ruling which struck down the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

It is dangerous to try to predict the outcome of a case based on oral arguments. By their very nature, they lead the Justices to attack, or at least probe and test, the weak points of both side’s arguments. However, Justice Kennedy’s questioning in the current case (or cases, consolidated under the name of one of them, Obergefell v. Hodges) at least showed an understanding of some issues which advocates of redefinition tend to gloss over or deny.

An ancient definition

For example, the very first question that Kennedy raised for Mary Bonauto, attorney for the petitioners seeking licenses for same-sex civil marriages, reflected two key elements of the way conservatives believe the issue should be framed. Liberals argue that the issue is “access” to the institution of marriage; conservatives say the issue is the fundamental definition of marriage. Liberals focus on the recent adoption of laws and state constitutional amendments to “ban same-sex marriage,” while conservatives point out those measures merely preserve the longstanding definition of marriage.

Kennedy took the conservative side of both points when he said, “…[T]he word that keeps coming back to me in this case … is ‘millennia.’ … This definition has been with us for millennia. And … it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well…. we know better.”

Bonauto seemed to want to avoid this topic of the antiquity and universality of marriage as a male-female union, arguing, “The States create the definition of civil marriage and certainly are accountable for those definitions and any exclusions which follow.” However, Kennedy returned to the larger perspective, noting, “If you read … about the Kalahari people … or ancient peoples, they didn’t have a government like this. They made it [marriage] themselves and it was man and woman.”

No “fundamental right”

Advocates for marriage redefinition use the tactic of throwing several constitutional arguments at the wall to see which will stick. One of these is the argument that the marriage laws deny to homosexuals the “fundamental right to marry,” which the Supreme Court has declared in previous cases that individuals have as a “liberty” interest protected by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. In questioning U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who was also given time to argue in favor of marriage redefinition on behalf of the Obama Administration, Justice Kennedy pointed out (and Verrilli appeared to concede) the Achilles’ heel of the “fundamental rights” argument in this context.

The Supreme Court laid down criteria for identifying new “fundamental rights” in a 1997 case called Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court rejected the assertion that assisted suicide is a “fundamental right.” First, there must be a “careful description” of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. In the suicide case, they said the right being asserted was much narrower than a so-called “right to die.” Second, the interest, so described, must be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.”

In the marriage context, advocates for redefinition argue that the “fundamental right to marry” implicitly includes the right to marry the person of your choice, and therefore they are not seeking a new right to same-sex “marriage.” However, Kennedy asked Verrilli, “I’m interested in your comments on Glucksberg, which says that we should have to define a fundamental right in its narrowest terms.”

It is plain that a “careful description” of the “right” currently being asserted is “the right to marry a person of the same sex.” It is equally obvious that no such right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history,” and Verrilli made no effort to claim that it was, conceding to Kennedy, “We haven’t made the fundamental rights argument under Glucksberg.”

“Why should the State have to yield?”

Although the central issue before the Court is whether states have a constitutional obligation to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, there were separate arguments on a related question which had been litigated in some states — whether a state which licenses only opposite-sex marriage must nevertheless recognize same-sex unions that were legally contracted elsewhere. One very real possibility, ignored by most of the media, is that the Supreme Court could rule that states do not have to issue licenses to same-sex couples, but do have to recognize such unions from other states.

However, Justice Kennedy challenged Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, the attorney arguing for such recognition, by pointing out the threat to the State’s public policy choice. As Kennedy noted, the recognition question presumes “that the State does have a sufficient interest so that you need not allow the marriages … in that State… . But then suddenly, if you’re [from] out of State it’s different. Why should the State have to yield” to another State’s policy?

A “biological mom and dad”

Not all of Justice Kennedy’s questioning was sympathetic to conservatives, of course. When John J. Bursch of Michigan was arguing in defense of the four states, Justice Kennedy seemed to have some trouble understanding, or engaging with, the actual argument Bursch was making.

For example, Bursch had argued that marriage “developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology” — meaning the unique potential for natural procreation that is only present in opposite-sex couples, never in same-sex ones. He warned, ” … [W]hen you change the definition of marriage to delink the idea that we’re binding children with their biological mom and dad, that has consequences.” Later, Bursch suggested that a key purpose of marriage is “to inextricably bond kids to their biological moms and dads.”

Justice Kennedy complained, ” … [Y]ou had some premise that only opposite-sex couples can have a bonding with the child. That’s … just a wrong premise.” However, Bursch was not saying that only opposite-sex couples can bond with a child, but that the state has a unique interest in encouraging the man and woman who are biologically responsible for the child’s existence to do so.

Justice Kennedy seemed to be missing Bursch’s point that there is particular value in connecting children to their biological parents, and in having a parent of both sexes. The more liberal justices just bluntly disagreed. After Bursch said, “I mean, I think we can all agree that, in general, that we want kids to stay bound to their biological mother and father whenever possible,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor immediately responded, “No, I — I think they should be bound to their parent …”

Do unmarried people lack “dignity?”

Another disturbing aspect of Justice Kennedy’s questioning involved the amorphous concept of “dignity.” Bursch argued, ” … [What] they [the Plaintiffs] are asking you to do is to take an institution, which was never intended to be dignitary [sic] bestowing, and make it dignitary bestowing. That’s their whole argument.”

Kennedy seemed puzzled. “I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage… and these parties say they want to have that — that same ennoblement.”

Bursch, however, held his ground, returning to a hypothetical “world where marriage doesn’t exist and the State is trying to figure out, ‘How do we link these kids with their biological moms and dads when possible’ … [D]ignity may have grown up around marriage as a cultural thing, but the State has no interest in bestowing or taking away dignity from anyone …”

Bursch also pointed out a key problem with the assumption that marriage “bestows dignity” — namely, that it implies that people who are unmarried lack dignity. ” … [I]f you turn it into a dignity-bestowing institution, then other family structures and children who are excluded from their definition would suffer a dignitary harm.”

For example, if an unmarried woman and her unmarried adult daughter are jointly raising the younger woman’s minor child (not an uncommon family structure), does the fact that the consanguinity provisions of the law prevent mother and daughter from marrying deprive their household of “dignity?” It’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court would say such a thing.

Conclusion

Justice Kennedy seems to realize that marriage is an ancient institution, and that the male-female union has always been fundamental to its definition, not a mere incidental regulation imposed upon it. He seems to acknowledge it would be arrogant for the Court to overturn such an ancient definition, and to recognize that same-sex “marriage” is no “fundamental right.” He also seems concerned (as he was in the DOMA case) for the power of states to determine their own marriage policy.

Let us hope he can bring himself to acknowledge the unique value of bonding children to parents of both sexes with whom they have a biological (not just legal) relationship, and that he recognizes such a child-centered interest (not an adult-centered interest in “dignity”) is what justifies the institution of civil marriage in the first place.

by
Robert Morrison

May 4, 2015

For Britain, it is May Day. May Day was last Friday. The First of May has been a traditional holiday in Britain and Europe for centuries. Since the French Revolution, however, May Day represented workers and the Left.

“May Day!” is also the international distress call (M’aidez—from the French for help me!) Next Friday, there will be an important national election in Great Britain. It could have profound influence on America. Polls are unusually volatile this time, but British Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, could win and be installed in Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister.

If that happens, Britain will lurch dangerously to the Left. Among a raft of radical proposals, Miliband is promising (or threatening) to make “Islamophobia” a crime if Labour wins a majority in the House of Commons. Under the parliamentary system, the House of Commons wields almost unchecked power.

Ed Miliband certainly would not claim to be anti-Jewish. His own parents were Jewish refugees from Hitler’s murderous regime. They sought asylum in Britain. But Ed Miliband is a true believer—not in God, he’s an atheist—but in Marxism. As hard as that may be to believe, it is nonetheless true.

Ed Miliband had to oust his own brother David for the leadership of Britain’s Labour Party. But mostly, he repudiated “New Labour,” the shift toward moderation represented by the long tenure of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Just as President Obama sought out Marxist professors in college, Ed Miliband is the product of the most left-leaning background imaginable (during his American stay, he even developed a fanatical loyalty to an American baseball team: the Boston Red Sox!)

Britain’s socialists make it easy for voters: They wear red. Their posters and buttons are red. Even their ties, when they wear them, are red.

The reason the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is in trouble is not because he’s not compassionate enough; it’s because he’s not conservative enough.

He is wedded to the increasingly troubled, bureaucratic, undemocratic European Union (EU). And Cameron ignored mounting evidence that maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is vital for a flourishing civil society. He cast aside reasonable concerns when he rammed through Parliament a bill to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. This caused deep misgivings among many of the Tories’ grassroots supporters.

These traditional Tory voters have been moving to the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP). Party leader Nicholas Farage is anti-EU and is raising sharp questions about Britain’s immigration policies, which Cameron has maintained.

Cameron has recently made statements supporting Christians persecuted abroad—which is more than President Obama has done. But at home, Prime Minister Cameron’s government is not meeting the challenge of Islamism.

Several years ago, the Anglican Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-ali told a group at the Heritage Foundation that England is daily losing her historic identity. England, the prelate said, is characterized by Common Law and the Christian religion.

Every day, said the Pakistani-born bishop, Britain is giving in to Islamist demands.

Bishop Nazir-ali has been threatened with death for speaking out against Islamism. When asked if muezzins should be permitted to call the Muslim faithful to prayer his English diocese of Rochester, Bishop Nazir-ali, replied: “Yes, of course. As soon as church bells can be rung in Saudi Arabia!”

An example of what Britons call “the looney Left” and a cringing surrender to political correctness is seen in the horrific story of sex trafficking in Rotherham. Columnist Mona Charen spoke to Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” audience about the horror of Rotherham, England. English girls were trapped by a ring of pedophiles, most of them of Pakistani origin, most of them Muslim. Unwilling to confront this issue, British Labour Party local officials and police abandoned 1400 girls to sexual slavery.

We can expect more, not less, of this if Ed Miliband wins in Britain. Despite the fact that his fled from murderous anti-Semitism, Ed Miliband could be the man who makes it a crime to criticize any practice of Islam. Thus, objection to female genital mutilation, or dishonor killings, or death threats against apostates will be punishable by fines and prison.

For all his academic brilliance, Ed Miliband seems unaware that modern Islamist radicalism traces its origins to the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt in 1928.

Hassan al-Banna rejected the paganism of Germany’s National Socialist Party (NAZI), but he admired their organizational skill and he fully embraced their Judenhass (Jew hatred). We have been concerned about Muslim Brotherhood influence in our own government as well as in Great Britain. President Obama welcomed and gave millions in foreign aid to Egypt’s MB-dominated government in 2011. (Only when it was overthrown by popular demonstrations and Egypt’s military had to step in did Mr. Obama cut off aid to Egypt.)

Britain has no First Amendment—which is a major reason why we do! Still, Britain’s history of free speech and tolerance of dissent will be at risk if Ed Miliband gains the power to impose his austere brand of socialism.

FRC has long noted that Britain legalized abortion and homosexuality before the U.S. did. Labour in Britain also legalized suicide. That is why what happens in Britain doesn’t necessarily stay in Britain. All of these changes started there and came here. With President Obama equally determined to “fundamentally transform” America, a victory for Labour next Friday could give a sense of inevitability to these dangerous trends. May Day, indeed!

by
Joshua Denton

May 1, 2015

Not more than 24 hours ago ISIS released a shocking new photo that is of an entirely different nature than any previously released.

ISIS has largely waged its war on the West with an eerie online presence, by taping and capturing videos of massacres of Christians, numerous beheadings, burnings, stonings, etc. These images, which once shocked us and filled us with horror, have become almost mundane. We turn our heads and forget because it does not have a direct impact on us. Yet.

Since many Americans have largely closed their eyes to the brutality that defines ISIS, the terrorist group may be trying a new method to strike fear into the hearts of those whom it opposes.

The picture recently released is of a very young infant sleeping peacefully with a handgun placed on the one side of the child, and a grenade on the other.

It is very tragic to think of the violence and destruction that this child will experience. Undeniably, this child will grow up in an environment surrounded by unspeakable brutality – and never know that there is anything different. Yes, this is heart wrenching to think of.

The intentions of the photo are unmistakable. And their implications should send a shiver down our spine as we sit comfortably in front of our laptops or electronic devices viewing from a safe distance. Clearly, ISIS intended this photo to say “We mean business. We aren’t going away anytime soon. We may die, but our children will follow in our footsteps. The plans we fail to accomplish, those who come behind us will achieve.”

If this isn’t disconcerting to you there is a problem.

Although ISIS undeniably poses a potential threat to our security as a nation, this picture didn’t cause me to advocate for a declared U.S. government disapprobation of ISIS – although that certainly is in order. Instead, this image motivates me to follow the principles of Scripture and be an intergenerational influence for the sake of Jesus Christ. Viewing our service to God in this manner isn’t an option, it’s a command.

My complete and committed life purpose is to be a positive, animated influence on families - inspiring them to motivate others, thereby creating an explosive, multi-generational chain reaction - that encourages individuals to stand strong and courageous for Jesus Christ!

Eph. 6:12 (KJV) reminds us: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

We will always have adversaries to contest in both the physical and spiritual realms, and we can’t be certain what we may face in the days ahead. But as long as I am faithfully following God and assisting others to do the same, I can have full confidence in what is forthcoming – no matter what the outcome.

Corrie Ten Boom put it so aptly when she said, “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.”